Evaluation of a Community-Based Exercise Program for Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is important during treatment for breast cancer to alleviate the usual declines in physical and emotional health and overall health-related quality of life (HRQL). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and enjoyment of a community exercise program for breast cancer patients who were currently undergoing or within 3 months of completing chemotherapy or radiation treatment. METHODS: Breast cancer patients Engaging in Activity while Undergoing Treatment (BEAUTY) is a 12-week program of resistance, aerobic, and flexibility exercise. Participants completed pre and post fitness assessments, and questionnaires to measure HRQL, fatigue, cognitive function, and depressive symptoms. Participants had access to group exercise classes and were provided a home-based exercise program. RESULTS: Participants (n = 80) were middle aged (mean age, 50.3 [SD, 9.0] years), and the majority were diagnosed with stage II breast cancer (53.8%). From baseline to 12 weeks, resting heart rate (mean [INCREMENT], +4.15 beats/min) and body mass index increased slightly (mean [INCREMENT], +0.47 kg/m). No clinically significant changes in HRQL or other psychosocial questionnaires, but social well-being decreased (t77 = 3.83, P = .000) slightly, and emotional well-being improved (t77 = -2.15, P = .034). Participants attended an average of 7.5 (SD, 6.5) classes; feedback about the program was positive, and no exercise-related injuries were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The BEAUTY program was feasible and effective in managing chemotherapy and radiation treatment-related declines in physical fitness and HRQL. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study supports the need to integrate exercise programming as part of treatment plans for breast cancer patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it